KP saga shows ECB's insecurity to T20s

When Kevin Pietersen said that his relationship with the ODI and Test format was beyond reconciliation and that he wished to flirt just with T20s, it made the ECB scowl like a father of a bride whose marriage had just been called off. Pietersen did retract his statements after a few battles with the board and eventually did agree to play all three formats, but the ECB still managed to find its own way of rapping the batsman on his knuckles.

Most believed that the punishment was simply to point out that no player can be bigger than the team or the board and that anyone who thought he was, should reconsider with immediate effect. There is just one loophole in that theory, if Pietersen did finally agree to play all formats then was it really necessary to drop him from such an important series, just because of a few text messages? Perhaps the punishment wasn't about the stature of the player at all. Maybe it had more to do with the example he was setting and it possibly made the ECB feel a little insecure.

Think about it, one of England's finest cricketers ditches the longest format to play T20s, that's bound to set some young minds astray isn't it? So in order to ensure that no cricketer dares to even harbour thoughts of choosing the shortest format over the other two, the ECB made an example out of Pietersen's punishment. As T.A. Sekar, someone who has worked with KP in the Delhi Daredevils, points out "Test cricket is the ultimate thing for the ECB and they might be concerned about the format because they are the number one Test team at the moment." More than just preserving Tests, the ECB looks to be a little insecure about losing the ODI format to its younger sibling. Proof of that fact can be seen in their laws for players, which states that a player can play T20s only if he makes himself available for selection in the One Day format. Quite certainly, that rule reflects a slight sense of fear. Many are of the opinion that the ECB are out to protect the Test and ODI format, but could it be that they just want to prevent their players from becoming free agents to leagues like the IPL?

Insecurity that stems from the T20 format is not exclusive to the ECB, in fact it exists within cricket's governing body as well. In June 2012, the ICC came out with a list of recommendations, one of which stated that an Under-19 T20 World Cup must not exist. When T20s were first launched, it was branded as a format for the younger generation, that statement seems pretty ironical now. "Maybe the ICC doesn't want this T20 culture coming in through Under-19 players," says Sekar. Obviously the ICC fears that the younger generation might grow up playing T20s, take a liking to it, and show their back to the other two formats.

Realistically though, there shouldn't actually be such a large insecurity factor. Club culture hasn't advanced to a stage that it has in football, wherein the club actually decides if a player can play for his country in a specific tournament. Sekar believes that such a case is far from possible, "IPL and BBL are the only prominent T20 leagues, the others are far behind. When you look at football, all the leagues go on for 7 odd months while the IPL exists just for 6 weeks." So if the ICC has already limited the number of international T20s and if the other T20 leagues aren't taking centre stage yet, then why does the ECB and the ICC's ways show such glaring signs of insecurity.

The other problem is one that Sekar points out quite well, "someone who plays just T20s will find it very difficult, because with just a few successful leagues he will be able to play only for 2-3 months and then there could be a silent period of at least 4 months until the next league." It is pretty clear then, that a cricketer needs to play more than just T20s to be able to survive and succeed. Yet the ECB and the ICC seem to want to police around and decide what a player can and cannot play. The current scenario probably comes across as something quite unjust, besides shouldn't a player have the right to decide what he does for a living.